reply to post by Kali74
Is your bicycle or feet broken if so, is there really nothing else we can come up with to solve the problem of dirty energy? Humanity has
reached it's capacity to problem solve...we've not made any progress toward that goal already?
Let's take an example. Quite a few people commute 20 miles each way to work. In a car, that's a half-hour each way, or an hour a day spent in
travel. On foot, with an average walking speed of 3 mph, that's almost 7 hours each way, or almost 14 hours a day spent in travel. If one works eight
more hours a day, that's 22 hours spent getting to the job, doing the job, and returning home. Seeing that a day consists of 24 hours, that leaves 2
hours to sleep, eat, shower.... and people wonder why I use the word "fantasy" so much when discussing this subject.
Bicycles.. wonderful devices. Ever try to ride one through the pouring rain? How about the snow? Do you really care so little for humans that you
would decree they must endure the ravages of nature, the illnesses that would be caused by such exposure, and the physical exertion, impossible for
some people, associated with bicycling long distances?
We have made progress toward better energy sources. We have hydro power on practically every river in the country capable of being dammed. We have
wind turbines, which I will admit I was initially skeptical of. There are experiments ongoing about using wave energy (my personal favorite new
technology); I just did a report on the Wave Dragon design and implementation of a pre-commercial 1.4 MW unit in the Danish North Sea. But it is
foolhardy to stop using a tried and perfected energy source without a viable replacement ready to take the load.
I will be the first to celebrate the day we can shut down the last fossil fuel power plant in favor of cleaner sources of energy. That day has not yet
arrived. Please be patient while actual engineers do the necessary work to make it a reality.
Even with cleaner electricity, however, the transportation issue will not disappear. In order for automobiles to provide the needed ranges and power
for transportation, they must be powered with fuel that has sufficient energy density to allow a reasonable amount to be carried on board. Electric
cars are wonderful for urban commuting, and hybrids are fine for suburban situations, but for rural, industrial, and commercial use we have nothing
that approaches fossil fuels. Perhaps one day we will find something, but until then I live in a world where reality says we need to keep existing
while we search.
I don't know what's preventing you from acknowledging it.
I guess you did because they don't exist.
Nice try; I almost spent the next three hours looking up those old threads. But then I realized even if I did find them you would probably find some
warped reasoning to say they really didn't exist or were the result of some oil-cartel-inspired conspiracy, and I have a sensor to finish designing.
So we can just chalk this up to me banging my head on that wall of ignorance.
I guess you've forgotten the post of mine you came across that provided you with what you said you'd been looking for, for years.
Not the post, but I had forgotten it was you. Forgive me.
Again, I don't know how you are able to see things differently than they actually appear... these are not excuses or damage control, they are
the emails in their entirety vs little snippets.
I have read them, in their entirety. Several I will agree with you on: the snippets were taken out of context. Others, I do not agree with you on. The
snippets were actually consistent with the tone and wording of the entire message, and did indicate, to me at least, that either the writers were
incompetent or they were trying to cover up improper actions.
The very essence of science is communication of results and methodology. Without those two things, every discovery is suspect. The very fact that
official emails had to be hacked and leaked is in itself a major clue that something untoward was happening. There should have been nothing,
absolutely nothing in those emails that had not been fully disclosed publicly.
I didn't miss anything, including the post you tied James Hansen et al into the conspiracy. It had been very informative up until that
point... still is, I very much appreciated the history lesson, you just lost at me at that point. I think I literally did the Jackie Chan meme face. I
will never understand this NWO/agenda 21 conspiracy tie in to climate change... it's completely illogical. The world economy is based on fossil fuel,
we go to war after war over it, it lobbies every government in the world, essentially controls western and middle eastern governments... but somehow
it's the people saying we need to rethink fossil fuels that are the problem? Seriously?
I am one of those people who say we need to rid ourselves of dependence on fossil fuels!
I don't say it because of carbon dioxide or non-extant rising ocean levels; I say it because of the political turmoil and concentration of power it
has led to. I simply also acknowledge the reality that the Global Warming agenda is biased to further centralize that power and to actually increase
the power of the oil cartels, as well as the fact that we have no viable substitute for all present uses of fossil-fuel-based energy. As I mentioned
before, wave technology is clean, efficient (the Wave Dragon basically uses wave energy to create a river and hydro dam in the middle of the ocean),
plentiful, and probably cheap. That's a great energy source and far far far preferable to any fossil fuel plants. I also think properly designed
nuclear energy has promise and should continue to be a focus, even though we do face serious challenges in fuel disposal. I am constantly looking for
information on potential new battery designs, the single largest hurdle to making electric vehicles practical outside urban environments. I support
pollution controls (as long as the target is pollution and not plant food), and I would like nothing better than to have the Amazon rain forests
decreed off limits to clear cutting (I refuse to allow such here on my 90 acres; I have actually run loggers off my property for even suggesting
The difference between us is not that you want clean and I want polluted. The difference is that I take a balanced and realistic approach to the
problem. I want a solution to problems, not excuses for perceptions. I expect theories to be supported with reliable, verifiable evidence and to give
repeatable results that are easily peer-reviewed, which require all methodology and results to be openly and completely communicated to the public. I
expect, no, demand that alternate theories be given press so they can be either proved viable or disproved.
I demand scientific integrity and honesty. Sorry we disagree.